It seems another sector of the Canadian "workforce" has adopted
the habit of striking. Recently, as I was walking down Ottawa's Rideau street,
a found myself surrounded by a small conglomeration of waving placards and
chanting voices. One of these signs caught my eye; it read: "The Homeless
and the Unemployed are on Strike – Day 3".

I'm no stranger to union strikes – the Vancouver suburb where I spent
my youth was replete with silver-spoon socialists and under the guidance
of an NDP government. Strikes in Vancouver were so regular they should have
been made provincial holidays. Yet these employees went on strike in order
to torture us with their absence. Teachers refused to indoctrinate young
minds, nurses encouraged us to "empty our own damned bedpans" and
garbage collectors rendered our city a stagnant swamp of human filth. Much
as I deride union activity, these strikes were somewhat effective - they
revoked services that were truly missed. What service could the homeless
and unemployed possibly be withholding by going "on strike"? Were
they threatening to remove themselves from the street and live better lives?
Or worse, to replace their panhandling with a dreaded minimum-wage job, thus
depriving themselves, and us, of their unemployment?

The Ottawa strike of the Homeless and Unemployed was small and for the most
part unnoticed, but its message is not. Labour unionization has become so
common place that it has seeped into every facet of society, even those who
do not labour. To make matters worse, Canada's social programs and welfare-state
mentality have turned indigence into an industry.

Unions, originally formed to secure basic work standards, have been utterly
swallowed by the political realm. Politics itself has been plundered by the
dominance of "special interest groups" such as trade unions. If
you cannot identify yourself as an "interest" group, the government
is not interested in you. It is no wonder that activities such as strikes
and protests seem to be the only way to get attention (or money) anymore,
when the vast majority of noisy interest claims are indulged. The homeless
and unemployed have long been a government-funded interest group. It is almost
surprising that it took them this long to adopt the trend. Government workers
and civil servants play a large part in setting this example; 71 per cent
of government employees are members of unions.

It's also not surprising that the homeless and unemployed consider themselves
part of an industry. After all, our government does not simply provide aid
in times of crisis; it continuously pays people not to work. A lack of proper
targeting and limits on welfare, which would provide the incentive for the
unemployed to improve their own lives, have instead given recipients a steady
income and a "job" they can't lose. In fact, keeping this job and
its relative security is contingent upon underperformance by normal standards.

The welfare business has an enormous payroll. In 2002, 2 million Canadians
were on welfare. This makes the industry of not working more than six times
the size of our agricultural industry, which employs 330 000 people. These
numbers don't even include the nearly 200 000 public servants in the welfare
department, whose jobs would be obsolete if welfare recipients disappeared.

Poverty itself has spawned its own industries. I've never seen such an aggressive
group of beggars as those in Ottawa, or one which more closely resembled
a high-commission retail store. In the few months since I moved to this city,
I have been harassed daily, blocked from moving down the sidewalk, and followed
down the street and into restaurants and stores. These panhandlers fight
for "good placement", develop a formulaic sales-pitch to shout
at each passerby, and even organize themselves into makeshift cooperatives.
Yahoo.com even has an online e-panhandling directory, where the unemployed
can beg electronically. Once, a man who was haranguing me for money interrupted
his tirade to answer his cellular phone. Yet what is most disturbing is the
moral indignation with which I am increasingly greeted when I refuse to proffer
my change purse. I was recently told by a panhandler that I was greedy to
refuse him his "right to money". "Right to work" legislation
is a concept with which we are all familiar. What's next, right to not work
legislation ?

It has been noted for years that our welfare system provides an disincentive
for the homeless and unemployed to work and improve their lives. This trend
is more dangerous then it seems. Canada has not created a safety net or a
even a safety hammock – we have created a multi-billion dollar welfare
industry. Welfare should be a last resort, and only for those who have exhausted
all other means. It should have time limits, work requirements, and diminishing
payments if these criteria are not met. Our current system has removed the
incentive for families and communities to care for their members, and for
individuals to care for themselves. Our system for dealing with poverty has
also made hard-working citizens less likely to give charitably. Why should
I give to help the poor when I am taxed exorbitantly for this very reason,
and when the homeless person I am apparently helping has a guaranteed salary
and more "job" security than I do?

Welfare and alms are not rights -- they are a way to help those with no
other options, and therefore are a privilege. Our system has branded them
as entitlements that prop up an entire industry. Because its members are
still poor and unemployed, the Indigence Industry feels that society has
violated these fictional "rights". They are incensed, and they
are going on strike.